A threatening employee gets fired in a hostile termination event. Six months have passed with no contact from the ex-employee. Still, worried members of the company’s human resources and legal team ask the security manager or consultant originally brought in to help with the separation, if they should get a civil restraining order. The security professional advises no, however, company officials scratch their heads and wonder why and whether or not they should seek a second opinion.
An angry customer begins to pepper an online retailer with angry, disturbing and threatening e-mails, promising to "pay them a visit they will never forget." The company has no public face and it uses an offsite mail drop for its visible address online. Few people even know the company’s actual physical location. The firm asks its security consultant if they should hire a security company to update their physical security equipment and bring in an armed security guard for their lobby. The consultant advises yes to the first idea and no to the second, but the retailer wants to know why?
A taxpayer stalked a female employee of a county department, bringing her flowers, candy and cards. She refused his gifts and told him to leave her alone. His contacts with her at work escalated to the point where he was arrested by police. In the "interest of justice," the county prosecutor declined to file felony charges against the man. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of harassment and was sentenced to one year on probation and given credit for jail time served. The probation department’s report called him "emotionally immature, childlike in his social development, and not a likely threat to harm her," since he has no prior criminal record, history of violence or is documented to own firearms. In the weeks since his final court appearance, the man has had no further contact with her or any other county department employee. The sheriff’s office also has had no interaction with him, but the woman is concerned. She tells her fears to her husband, who happens to be an elected member of the board of supervisors. He demands answers and security-related activities to protect her at home and work. The security consultant advises the county to "observe and monitor" the situation. The board official subsequently calls the security expert to complain that not enough is being done.
In each of these scenarios (based on true events), the people on the receiving end of the security expert’s advice want more than words - they want actions. "Don’t just sit there, do something" is the plea. To which the security consultant will calmly answer: "I am doing something. In fact, many things - some of which are visible to you and some of which are not." In our field, we know taking active measures makes some situations instantly better and some immediately worse. Our internal or external clients don’t always see it that way. They mistake our efforts for inaction.
Thanks to TV shows and movies, they have grown accustomed to people in and around the security arena or the criminal justice system to show up, deal with the threatener face-to-face and take care of business. In our male-dominated culture, watching and waiting is for losers; "real men" get involved with bad people, using raid jackets, handcuffs and guns, or at least the threat of using raid jackets, handcuffs, and guns.
All this flies in the face of what we know to be true in the threat assessment field; observing and monitoring is quite a useful approach for a subject who has not made further contact with the victim or the target(s), and has not showed signs of being on a path from violent ideas to suicidal or homicidal actions. As longtime security consultant and threat assessment thought leader Gavin de Becker so accurately puts it: "Sometimes when you engage, you enrage." Let’s go back through each scenario again, to verify that what the threat assessment expert suggested in each case was correct.
The terminated employee in the first scenario has made no effort to contact the organization. Further research suggests he filed for unemployment (which the security manager wisely told the company not to contest), and rumor has it that he may have taken a job in a nearby city. To have the local marshal, constable, sheriff, or process server track him down and give him a notice to appear at a hearing for a civil stay-away order is likely to cause him to rethink his self-imposed no-contact plan. Leave him alone with his life and monitor the situation for any new contacts with employees or other potentially alarming information.
The angry customer in the second scenario could be around the corner, two states away, or in another country. Adding to the company’s physical security presence for the building with an updated alarm system and better door locks and hardware is always a good idea. Since so few people know where the offices are and because they use a separate mail drop, the chances are unlikely that even a skilled Internet user could find the actual location. Any armed or unarmed security guard would be bored to tears sitting in a lobby that does not attract visitors, vendors or customers. E-mail messages that suggest suicide, suicide by cop or homicide, coupled with boundary probing behaviors would change this situation dramatically toward immediate actions being taken.
The resolution to the taxpayer stalker case has many benefits; occasional status checks and contact with a probation officer; no evidence of a history of violence or weapons possession; a personality style that suggests immaturity over aggression; and, the best inhibitor of all, no previous sexual relationship between the victim and the subject. Her husband is right to be concerned about the safety of his wife, but the information we have suggests the chances for violence are low.
Security professionals who consult externally for an organization, or internally in their security, HR or risk management departments owe their clients explanations as to why they have chosen to respond to the threat event as they have. Explaining your methodology and the range of approaches you can or will use can go a long way toward minimizing the concern that you aren’t doing enough.
About the Author: Dr. Steve Albrecht, PHR, CPP, BCC, is internationally recognized for his training, writing, and speaking on workplace violence response and school violence prevention. In 1994, Steve co-wrote Ticking Bombs, one of the first business books on workplace violence. He is board certified in HR, security, and employee coaching. He can be reached in San Diego, CA at [email protected] or on Twitter @DrSteveAlbrecht.
